On second thought, don’t bother answering. We all know you’re wrong, and this whole discussion about the tax bill is a hijack of this thread about Franken anyway.
In 2018, the percentage of individuals with a tax increase in the lowest income distribution would be 1.7 percent, 6 percent in the second, 9.2 percent in the middle, 11.5 percent in the fourth and 12.9 percent in the top.
So yeah, in some states you start with a small tax decrease.
But then: “*What will happen is middle-income people and lower-income people will end up paying slightly higher taxes than they do under current law,” Gleckman said.
*
Every cite agrees. Some middle class get a small tax cut, then an increase to higher taxes.
While the rich just get cuts.
Maybe, but when the bill come to pay off the huge increase in debt this tax cut is giving the rich, tax increases will occur. They have to.
The fake news is rolling in:
\
That is true, although tax cuts are dwarfed by Medicare and Medicaid spending in terms of the deficit threat they pose. Health care spending is the whole ball game.
…what does any of that have to do with Franken?
Good point, wrong thread.
A valid comparison, in that he’s isn’t good enough, nor smart enough, and lots of folks hate him.
I still like him, sorry. While he probably shouldn’t be an elected official anymore, I would like to read more books from him.
Two things bother me about your statements here.
First, the Democrats drew no line. The line was drawn at “liability to capitalizing on sexual harassment as a wedge issue in 2018” or “liability to my Presidential aspirations if I don’t come out hard on him now”. As HurricaneDitka has enjoyed this entire thread, the response to Franken is driven by political calculation. I’m glad that you feel an appropriate line has been drawn and that its based on the ethics of the matter. I’m glad that you feel it is so clear that you’re willing to increase the likelihood of things like war with N. Korea or Iran or the repeal of Obamacare over it.
Second, there is the ethics of Franken’s behavior and there is the ethics of how we handle Franken’s behavior. I don’t want to be a part of a society that flips out so extremely over the accusation of the absolute mildest form of sexual harassment that it doesn’t bother to investigate before it forces elected officials out of office, forces an early election, and forces the citizens to be represented by someone they did not choose.
Let’s keep in mind that Franken wasn’t “forced out”. No one can force him out, short of a vote by the full Senate. The leaders convinced him, for whatever reason, that he should leave. I personally think they did it because they thought it would better for the party if he left. But if he disagreed, he should not have acquiesced-- he should have stood firm, and let the chips fall where they may. For those who think Franken should have stayed, why do you think he decided to leave?
I confess, this is probably one of my all-time favorite SDMB threads. For me personally, it even beats out the schadenfreude thread for comedic value.
If only I had a dollar for every time I read a post that started with “I am amused that…” or “I find it hilarious that…”. Most frequently, these are posted by tighty rightys who have no discernible sense of humor.
That would be what we call confirmation bias, assuming you are talking about this MB…
34 of the 48 people you’d expect to stand with you are asking you to leave. They forced him out or convinced him to leave on his own. I doubt it had anything to do with the substance of the charges.
It’s refreshing to argue about the appropriate response and characteristics of sexual harassment instead of dealing with the typical Republican who barely is able to acknowledge such a thing exists. I am actually learning something from this argument and it’ll make me a better person in the future. Arguing about this topic (and many others like Race-IQ, Global Warming) with members of the party of Moore and Trump just gives me fleas.
That’s what those who oppose the GOP say about them, sure. But it’s not what the faithful claim. They claim that the Republicans are the ones actually concerned about the debt. This blatant of an act to increase the debt is harmful to that image. It makes the Democrats seem like they are right.
Remember, the GOP paints the Democrats as the party that is all the “elites” who don’t care about the “common man” and claim they just want to increase the deficit. They paint themselves as the saviors. Now Democrats can use those same appeals.
I also don’t agree that Republicans are using any sort of long-term strategy about tax cuts. It was just what they had to do to get the tax bill passed for the rich people. They did something profoundly unpopular, so they mixed it in with something popular.
That’s the trick here. They’re hoping people will care more about getting a little more money back than they will about increasing the national debt or helping out the rich.
He can’t be “forced” out, except through the impeachment process. I’m not even sure what you mean by that, since you offer the alternative that they convinced him to leave. Can you clarify?
Maybe the Democrats created a hostile work environment for Franken so he would quit.
Franken is on a team in the Senate. A large proportion of the team asked him to resign. It’s easy to predict his job will be made more difficult when a large part of his team makes it public they want him gone. I interpret such a sequence of events as having been forced out.
If that’s being forced out, then this is a relatively common thing, since lots of other officials have resigned after pressure from their side.